How much "better" is atheism really?

NOTE: This thread does not flame against Atheism, but it does criticise it. It displays my definition of Atheism which seems to be not for the general public. If you can't deal with criticism towards Atheism you are in the wrong discussion.

Additionally the fear of extremism is directly linked to very seemingly possible distant futures NOT THE NEXT 2 YEARS.

First of all I would like to say I am mostly against all sorts of organized religions, but in fact I am agnostic. (meaning I dont admit defeat to any superpower untill there is enough evidence to support it)

In my opnion there is a big issue that does not tend to be adressed with religion in the right way. People always complain about how close minded religion really is and that most of their followers are just blindly pusuing the herd. Though how much "better" is atheism really?

Atheism is by my language's definition a religion itself. The translated definition of religion in German and Dutch state that a belief turns into a religion once the belief itself sets an definition of how the world works.

People think atheism is about the "we dont know" factor, but it is not. Atheism preeches the "We know YOU are wrong" factor.

I absolutely agree with the fact that atheism not being an organized religion (yet) gives it a higher level logical acceptance, but where is it going?

Atheism used to be the outcast lunatics hanged to death. Now there are groups forming all over the world with "logical leaders" behind it. I honestly think atheistm is goign in the same direction as all other religions are going right now. How far do you think you are of having atheism's jehovas whitnesses at your door? I have listened to my lesser educated/informed friends rampage about religion after having seen one biased documentary (Religulous). They were making statements such as, "I am gonna kill all those who believe in religion" etc. This is nothing more than atheist extremism. Even on this webiste it seems that some topics are purely places here ase a response to rage/anger against religious people.

This brings you to the discussion that should be here, maybe even istead of this entire website (not hating at the website, this place is great), "Are we too unintelligent?"

The reason people follow blindly what is set right infront of them is because they are uninformed and scared of complecated explanations that undermine the value of their own existence in this universe.

Religion is part of the problem, but education is in an infinitely worse state.

(Again I am not hating at atheism, as I am far more happy with it that even Buddism, but merely pointing out a more pressing issue. Next year Ill be attending univesity where I hope to find more who have brought themselves up to date with the real issues)

*EDIT: removed the word absolute from the definition of atheism, this is not correct.

Atheism is very simple. The only requirement is not to believe in a deity or deities. That's all, nothing more. There are atheists who adhere to a religion. The Raelians and some forms of Buddhism, for example. But that is very different from atheism being a religion itself. There are no dogmas, no texts, no strictures, no rituals, nothing like that. Just the absence of a belief in a god or gods.

Sure, there is more to most atheists than that, just as there is more to someone who does not believe in Bigfoot than not believing in Bigfoot. But not believing in Bigfoot isn't a religion, either.

In addition, atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. This is a common misconception, usually fueled by the assumption that atheism is a complete denial of the possibility for the existence of gods or the 100% certainty that there are no gods. This would be gnostic, or strong, atheism and is fairly rare. Much more common is agnostic, or weak, atheism. Most atheists fall into this category which can be summed up as 'I do not know, and do not believe.' It's also frequently explained as rejecting the belief in a god or gods due to the fact that there is not enough evidence to justify belief.

I agree with you putting the hammer down on re-igniting that debate. But this thread is a self ascribed "agnostic" trying to insinuate that "athiests" are "no better than" another religion. I'd say shut the thread down, because it's a thinly veiled backhand of the same argument. I could not possibly respond to it without mentioning the problems I see with using the label "agnostic"

I can "criticize my own beliefs" all day long, thank you. But you didn't happen to bring up any of my beliefs. You only mentioned a belief I don't have. I lack the belief in a magical sky entity who tells us what to do. That's it.

I get a little testy when people claim this makes it no better than a religion. Especially when they are a person who also lacks a belief in a god, but chooses a different label. The reasons I dislike the term agnostic are varied, even though I also consider myself agnostic. But, generally, it would be harder to correct what I mean by that word. I don't think it's a magic "in-between" word. I don't think it means I'm not atheist. I don't think it means there is a 50/50 chance there is a god. And it's not that I have thought so little about it that I have no opinion whatsoever.

I really don't see your point, anyway. If I didn't think atheism was "better" in some way, I wouldn't be atheist, right? The single reason I am atheist is that it most accurately describes reality using the tangible and manifesting descriptors I have available.

Like I have said 100 times now, I do not claim atheism is no better, in my mind, than other religions. I prefer atheism over the deity infested religions. I merely pose the question of what and how much is better within it's beliefs compared to the other ones.